(=Note: I am not sure if this is a fundie qoute in on itself but it is a description/review of a popular fundie play taken from a Christian Universalist blogging site, but even then they express extreme views=)

Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames - Maybe the most satanic play ever

Have you ever heard of the play "Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames"? I have never, ever withnessed such blasphemy what I withnessed about half a year ago! I had no idea that the tradition of middle-ages still lives so strong!

In the beginning of the drama, Jesus is crucified. Then the play shows us different people, who die during the play and are accepted to heaven or sent to hell depending on if their name was on the Book of
Life.

The thing which angered me most was that how the play was emphasizing hell and the eternal torment. Those, who have not reached the True Gospel are probably in great distress. I, although I know that God will not torture anyone for eternity, but chastens and makes everyone learn righteousness, I felt myself very, very uncomfortable. I don't remember last time when I have felt so terrible.

The play went on about an hour and during that hour the Satan took many souls into the depths of hell, where they shall be burning eternally.

In the play, Satan was portrayed as the master of hell and torture which is totally unscriptural, because Bible tells us that Satan will be thrown into the Lake of Fire and he does not rule it! Even the actor who played Satan admitted to me after the show that it is God's
hell, not Satan's (but still he took part of the play KNOWING that it wasn't actually scriptural!)

Immediatly after the play, when the play has scared the hell into the people (pun intended), the show's director climbs to stage and tells people to come and take Christ to their lives.

There is nothing wrong with taking Christ to your life, but these poor people do not take Christ into their people because of their faith and knowledge of the truths, but more because of the fear of eternal torture.

I ask myself now, how can the show's director ask people to step forward and take Christ into their lives if they do not know the true nature of Christ and God? God wills ALL to be saved and Christ is the saviour of all! ("For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God, Who is the Saviour of ALL men, especially of those that believe" - I Tim. 4:10)

Instead, they taught that damnable heresy of eternal torture. That God
allows and WILLS (because nothing will happen if God doesn't will it!) 99,9% of people to suffer for ETERNITY!

And now I have a need to mention few of the Satanic Highlights of the play.

In one scene there was a boy, whose father said that there is time to attend to church and give your life to god. Then the boy and the father died and they were both judged to hell, the father because he hadn't given his life to Jesus and the boy simply because HE BELIEVED HIS FATHER!

Is it really the boy's fault if he believed his father? Is the boy to blame? Do we believe that God of Love will punish and torture this boy ETERNALLY? The boy didn't even think he did anything wrong, because his father told him to do so and without better judgement, the boy did what almost anyone of us would have done in that age: he listened his parents, in this case the father.

The Last Judgement includes the word "to judge" and I have all my life believed that judging includes righteousness and God is righteous, more righteous than any human. Who believe that it is a fair judgement
to judge that boy to the eternal torture? Can anyone of you call it justice? No, I think no-one can call that justice. That is the justice what was taught on the play and I am overwhelmed how deeply Satan has deceived those poor people who believe in a god like that! How deeply are those people deceived who call the eternal torture of people justice!

I know that God has many great plans of us, but none of those plans include Eternal Torture! They are plans of Love, plans of Justice.

If you think logically, would eternal torture be a plan of Satan or the plan of God of Love? Well, it is the plan of Satan of course!

And the play also included a scene where were a non-believing mother and a teenage girl, who had her name written on the book of life. After they died, the Satan and his demons took the mother into the depths of hell and torture. The girl sobbed "mother" for few times, but when Jesus came, she suddenly started to smile and was happy.

How can one be happy when your mother or someone dear will be tortured for eternity? Would you be happy? NO Would anyone you know be happy? NO! So would there be a single happy person in heaven if almost all of their friends and family members are tortured? I would say "No" but there are many people who say that it's just the opposite and that is, I say, utter maddness!!

Here are some quotes from "christian" leaders concerning hell and eternal torture. (links not allowed)

They really believe that people don't feel any saddness because of the eternal torturing of their loved ones, but in fact they say that people will rejoice because such thing happens!

But the very post was to tell you another tale of maddness.

The description of the play says: "It is a dramatization of the reality of heaven and hell, showing the grace, mercy and love of God, and shows the choices we make"

Grace, mercy and love of God was NOT part of the message of the play! The more true description would be: "It is a traumatizion with a lie of eternal torture, showing God as the God of Torture, God of No Mercy and God of Hate, and teaches the heresy of Free Will."

Have any of you ever heard about this play? How do you feel about this? Isn't this almost as sick as it can be? The man who played satan knew that bible doesn't teach that way, but he still took part in the play, because "it is for the good cause". I would dare to say that Christ doesn't reach people with that kind of play. It's a play of satan, a play of fear, not of God and love!

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Religious Liberty: Militant Homosexual demands Christian Group accept him as a leader or lose it's University Registration...A violation of the Group's First Amendment Rights per the DOJ"

The DOJ supports a college Christian group, the Business Leaders in Christ, at the University of Iowa after a militant Homosexual college student targeted the Business Leaders in Christ and demanded the Christian Group accept him as Vice President, a leader in the group (ignoring their Statement of Faith and Christian beliefs) or lose it's university registration. When he was told that he could remain a member, reinformed of the groups Statement of Faith, which he refused to comply with, he was denied a leadership position.

The student then went to university officials and specifically requested that the Christian group be forced to make him, a practicing reprobate, a leader of Christians or that the University revoke the group's campus approval which also takes away any funding they were receiving - hateful, targeted persecution for standing for biblical Truth.

Unfortunately, the University of Iowa sided with the hateful student, ignored the Christian Group's rights and revoked the Business Leaders in Christ's approval-violating the Christian Student Group's First Amendment Rights. An act the DOJ does not approve of.

We must take note that it was not enough that he was allowed to join the group as a member and hopefully learn biblical-Truth that could set him free from his sins and abominations and save him through Jesus Christ. He wanted to actually lead the group away from biblical-Truth, it's Statement of Faith and Jesus Christ - which is a tactic of the enemy...to infiltrate Christian organizations and destroy them from within. Everyone knows that you don't join a group to change it, you join groups because you support their mission and want to be a part of what they're doing, not because you hate them and want to destroy them and stop what they're doing. But, that is exactly what the hateful alt-left does. If they can't change what a person or a group believes, then they do their best to destroy it - just like their father satan, who seeks to steal, kill and destroy. There's nothing new under the sun.

The point-Christians have rights and it's time we demand our rights: freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Student Group’s First Amendment Case Against University of Iowa

The Justice Department today filed a Statement of Interest in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa supporting the claim of a student group, Business Leaders in Christ, that the University of Iowa violated its First Amendment rights when it de-registered the group for requiring its student group leadership to sign a statement of faith. The government argues in its Statement of Interest that the University violated BLinC’s First Amendment rights to free association and free speech.

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified. Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND. May God bless you and keep you.

something and it was really stupid. Some people seem to argue that the act of having sex with a dog is "wrong" or should be illegal or is a good law if already a law becauseletting your dog be "the boss" is a risk to health between humans and stuff... and stuff like that.

Look, I am AGAINST abuse. However, consent is the only valid argument here, and if it's true dogs don't consent to having sex with humans, then it's bad, however if a dog goes right behind a human and does that toward the human, then I can't really say the dog was being raped, especially if the human didn't want that.
And that's a consent argument, and the debate about consent in this example is probably the only thing that matters.

But whenever I hear people use any argument OUTSIDE of that, I just cringe.
And let me kinda once again state this: I am against hurting any living being, and for example when you had sex with a dog without the consent of such dog for example, then I have a problem. Not sure about insects though, I might be fine with killing some with a napkin. Haha

But it's this dumb "fear" argument or "bad for your health" argument that pisses me off, and this argument alone is bad for anything involving law.

"It's good to have laws against sex with animals because letting a dog be boss could lead to problems to your health. And could make the dog and/or any similar behavior style non-human animal act crazy in the future!"
No, it's good to have laws if there is any abuse for example. And we should have laws against sex with any living being that lacks consent.
If a human WANTS to let their dog be boss, knows the risk of health toward the human person knowing, and allows it anyway, and the dog and human consents, then the person should have that right in privacy. It's not a legal excuse, but I'm trying to argue morally here. As for risk, there is MANY other ways that could lead a dog to being the boss, yet I have a feeling those are considered fine by many. That health and danger argument is just another bias argument that probably lacks any care about the non-human animal just so they can cause humans to suffer. I could be wrong, but this is ridiculous.
Yet, if a dog feels boss, does that mean it can't be handled? No! A situation like that could probably be control beyond such event, and one bad relationship is not evidence that it's bad for everyone.

That health and risk argument is one of the most dumbest and non-sense arguments I've seen, and even if I agreed that no non-human animal on this planet can consent with humans even though evidence may exist suggesting the opposite of such idea, that argument will always be a stupid argument in the same realm where "It's gross" or "it violates my religion" is used as if it's an "excuse".

Using ANY argument that has nothing to do with actual morality, means you're against freedom. And remember what I said about freedom, I think it's a right to enjoy life as long if no other creature is directly violated and isn't threatening to.
THAT'S WHY for this case, consent in awareness of sex should I think always be the the argument here and as long if such consensual act doesn't 90 to 100% lead to abuse in the future.

_______________

That being said, I remember seeing amazing arguments involving this taboo, and quite honestly, I think it was time to address these two arguments.
Again, this is about me having such a problem with people making up dumb excuses like this to decide something should be "wrong" and/or illegal. It should depend on consent for a case like this, and the same must be said for other sex stuff for example.
For example: Having sex with children is wrong because children can't consent. Using "Oh that is wrong because it's against a bible." is not a good argument to say it's wrong, however using "Children can't consent." and since it that statement is true is a valid argument. Get what I'm saying? Of course even if no one said the argument, it's still wrong because children can't consent.

I really hate it when someone who agrees a non-human animal has consented, but then decides to use a invalid argument after. That just shows they don't care about natural rights.
Again, as a person who questions popular beliefs a lot, this really needed to be said.

But what's the point? Even if I put out my damn disclaimers, some people are gonna go out and rant about this as a "WWWAREA DEFENDS BESTIALITY!" and will probably miss the point and promote false claims. Don't do that, it's really not cool. It's true, I do believe there is evidence of consent maybe, but still.

The truth of the Christian faith is plain and obvious. There is never a good objection against it, but it should be reverently accepted. And because the truth is plain and obvious, every objection against the Christian faith is always stupid and evil. Because every objection against the Christian faith is stupid and evil, we must attack every objection, and lest it is alleged that we avoid the issue, we should answer it as well. But more than this, it is characteristic of the Bible to attack the person who makes the objection. This is because whenever a person questions the Christian faith, it necessarily means that there is something wrong with the person.

Paul does not say, “O you wonderful and intelligent man, why do you make such an outrageous objection against God?” No, the apostle attacks the man himself – “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” This is a rhetorical question – he means that the man is a nobody and should shut his mouth. Paul is not stupid like our preachers and theologians. They tell us that non-Christians can be sincere and intelligent and yet make objections against God. Where did this nonsense come from? Perhaps they learned it from the non-Christians, who are always desperate to assert their sincerity and intelligence. Or perhaps the preachers and theologians wish to compliment their own defiance against God. But Jesus said that the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart. The non-Christian makes objections because he is a sinner, a rebel – he does not just act like one, but he is one. Any Christian who makes a meaningful contribution in preaching and debate must criticize and belittle the person – the non-Christian himself – and not just his arguments and his actions.

Who are you, O non-Christian, to challenge the truth of God, when the Bible declares that you already know about him? Like a coward, like a traumatized little child, you repress this knowledge so that you do not need to deal with reality. Who are you to reject a guilty verdict when the Bible shows that all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God? You retort, “Who are you to judge me?” Well, who are you to tell me that I may not declare God’s judgment upon you? Who are you to decline the gospel? You are nobody. You are nothing.

...

Away with all of you! God exercises complete and immediate control over all things, including the decisions and destinies of all men. Just as he molds his chosen ones into his masterpieces, he molds the reprobates into receptacles of rubbish and feces. Unlike our preachers and theologians, Paul’s opponent at least understands the doctrine, that it is God who creates and hardens the sinner, but the sinner is still blamed and punished. God hardens whom he wants to harden (v. 18), so that they cannot believe and be saved. He does this by his active and direct power, as a potter molds the clay (v. 21). Such men are prepared for destruction (v. 22). They cannot resist his will, but he still blames and punishes them (v. 19). He can do this because he is God, and no one can utter a word against him (v. 20).

King Solomon wrote a whole book on the meaninglessness of life. And among the few things he found meaningful for a man to enjoy were a good meal and pleasure with his wife. Now think about that! When you prepare a meal for your husband, isn’t it your desire that he enjoy it? Similarly, will you prepare yourself for him, physically, as his reward after dinner? God paid you quite a compliment when He gave you to your husband as your husband’s reward. God considered you a great prize to bring pleasure—in many ways—to your husband. That should make you and I want to be our husband’s reward, not his consolation prize.

There will be evidences of God's patience with us and of his mercy towards us as we struggle with sin. And there will be evidences of his sustaining grace as we go through horrific physical suffering that Satan was the immediate cause of (as it says in the Bible: "This woman . . . whom Satan bound for eighteen years" [Luke 13:16]. She had this bent-over back, and Satan was doing it, and God was ordaining that he be allowed to do it). God ordains all of these things so that his glory—his mercy, justice, grace, wisdom—would shine more brightly.

Now we can argue with that and say, "I don't agree. I don't think God should run the world this way." And if we ultimately disagree then we will reject God, we will reject the biblical testimony, and we will perish forever in hell. But I choose to trust him that his way of managing the devil and managing evil that comes at me is wiser than the way I might choose to manage it.

TRANSCRIPT
First frame, text identifies an illegal pointing a gun at a policeman. A large caged animal labelled "Media" does nothing.
Second frame, text identifies Trump addressing soldiers in Iraq. The large caged animal labelled "Media" snarls.

When the planes flew into the towers in New York, and I was interviewed, and people would ask me, "Where was God in this?" and I said, "Well, God could've very easily blown those planes off-course by a little puff of wind, and he didn't do it. Therefore, God was right there, ordaining that this happen, because he could've stopped it just like that", and everybody who believes in God should say that because that's how powerful he is, and Jesus said the wind obeys him, and so just a simple wind by the command of Jesus would've blown those planes away, and they would've crashed, and 60 people would've died instead of thousands of people. But he didn't do that.

Why is it comforting to believe that? And the answer is, because there are 10,000 orphans who wonder if they have a future. Will they have a future if God isn't powerful for them? I'm coming to those families, and I'm saying, when they ask me, "Do you think God ordained the death of my daddy?" I'd say "Yes. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. But the very power by which God governs all evils enables him to govern your life, and he has total authority to turn this and every other evil in your life for your everlasting good, and that's your only hope in this world and in the next, and therefore, if you sacrifice the sovereignty of God in order to get him off the hook in the death of your daddy, you sacrifice everything. You don't want to go there."

The sovereignty of God, while creating problems for his involvement in sin and evil, is the very rock-solid foundation that enables us to carry on in life. Where would we turn if we didn't have a God to help us deal with the very evils that he has ordained come into our lives? So yes, absolutely, I believe in the sovereignty of God, and I believe in its comforting effects.

There is an episode of the Twilight Zone called the Little People where a couple astronauts get stranded on a distant planet and while repairing their ship, they stumble upon a race of tiny humans a who are sophisticated enough to build houses, boats, trucks, cities, and appear in all aspects to be identical to the humans in every way except their size.

You can probably guess what happens next. An alien version of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. One of the astronauts decides he's going to be their God and begins to dominate the little people through fear and cruelty, based on no godly qualities except the advantage of having evolved to be massively bigger than them. It was a cool episode.

Anyway, what's interesting and possibly shocking to some, is I don't think I'd act very differently from that guy in his circumstance. I could see myself becoming a tyrant to them and enjoy every second of it. If I somehow came across a planet of tiny little aliens that were the size of ants to me, I don' think I'd have much of a problem with crushing a few of their towns, provided that that no one (or at least no one who mattered) would find out or try to punish me for it. I'd actually think it's hard to blame a guy like me for taking advantage of the size difference. I would love the chance to be revered as a god, even if I'd very much be an old testament god. Well, except that instead of meting out discipline with lightning, I'd be tyrannizing the little aliens by squashing dissenters with my giant stinking feet. If they needed me to press a giant sneaker-shaped footprint in the middle of their capital to remind them to worship me, then that's fine. Actually, I'd probably do that anyway.

Here is where you may disagree, but to me it seems like nature taking its course and I don't think I can fault some giant alien who came to Earth doing this either. In the immediate moment he's planting a huge foot down on NYC, I'd probably think the alien was a giant jerk, but looking at the big picture, I know I'd be too insignificant to this being to even get his attention, much less communicate in any meaningful way. And does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on? Besides, I already step on bugs all the time, often purposely.

In spite of what I'd do in the above situation, I wouldn't consider myself to be evil, immoral, or unethical. Rather, I'm generally considered to be an all-around great guy by friends and coworkers. I help people all the time for nothing in return, have donated to charities, given people rides, and I even volunteer as an EMT when I can. I run competitively, coach track for no pay. I've never been arrested, vandalized property, or wanted to hurt anyone.

What do you think of the behavior I described? How would you behave when in a situation where you gain absolute power over others? Would you be kind or cruel? Or would you walk away from the situation? Try to stay respectful of one another!

Deputy Chief of Mission at Chinese embassy in Islamabad Zhao Lijian created controversy over asking questions about former Senator Sanaullah Baloch’s “blood”?

Mr. Baloch has been a fierce critic of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project that both countries claim would bring an economic revolution in the region. The people of Balochistan, however, think it would change the demographics of their land, from where the project is to originate.

Thousands of locals have been forced to migrate to give way to the CPEC routes that link China to the Gwadar deep sea port.

On 14 October, replying to one of Mr. Baloch’s tweets, Mr. Lijian posted:

"@Senator_Baloch Chinese are here to help Gwadar to develop. Are you Pakistani in blood? Are you against development in Gwadar in blood?"

The war of words began when Mr. Lijian tweeted on the opening of a school in Gwadar under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor project (CPEC).

Mr. Baloch responded: “Would you like to give Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands to #Japan if they offer to build an (sic) university in #China? Than (sic) why #Gwadar just for a school?

Mr. Linjian tweet back: "Diaoyu Islands are disputed territory between China and Japan. Is Gwadar disputed? Chinese are here to help Gwadar. Please be reasonable."

The Chinese diplomat had to delete his tweet question about Mr. Baloch’s “blood” as criticism poured in from different circles.

Mr. Baloch is vocal on the CPEC’s dark side for Balochistan. In his latest piece on 4 October under titled ‘CPEC: A Baloch Perspective’, Mr. Baloch wrote

“This ambiguous nature of the CPEC has created more alienation than unification. So much fear has been created that none of the media persons or researchers living inside Balochistan dare write or talk about the CPEC.

The entire provincial government has no convincing data to prove what the CPEC has for Balochistan.

We need to be honest with ourselves – that China needed Gwadar and in return we got a multibillion dollar infrastructure, metro line, eastern route and motorways and energy projects that will be focused in particular part of Pakistan.”

The boomers smashed everything with the hammer of revolution without bothering to rebuild anything in its place.

They were raised in nuclear families with attentive and loving parents, where college could be paid with a summer job at the general store that didn't need bulletproof glass, where Homer could just walk down to the nuclear plant and get a job, with affordable housing, where everyone knew each other and trusted each other because they lived in a community with a shared culture. They didn't even lock their doors. Everyone was happy, there were no anti-depressants, no binge drinking and casual sex. Youth was focused on love and family building.

Now we live in boxed and unaffordable homes, in broken families with broken people, with drugs, and nobody trusts each other or even really knows each other. Where women rule the social scene with control over casual sex and men cannot even trust their partner.

What would women think if they were exposed to the images of how it used to be, if they saw that mad utopia and realised it's all gone, or more importantly, why it's all gone? But they dismiss it all with lies to save themselves from facing reality. They must've all been beating their wives back then. Yep. That's it. It's much better now. It is! Life is great.

I can't find a single shred of fault on the girls part. Lock these kids up or remove their penises.

Other than the fact that she willingly drank alcohol at an illegal age? Don't give me that.

Question, fellas: What would have been your reaction towards her if she were your daughter/sister?

Stupid question. Better question. What if your son was one of those rapists? You gonna send him to jail?

If I had a son who took part in the gang-rape of a young girl, I'd drive him to jail myself.

Sorry, but I believe you like I believe in Santa Claus being real.

You wouldn't turn in your child if they were guilty of rape? Love or not, the law applies to everybody, and if my child is unstable enough to rape somebody, who's to say that they won't hurt me in some way?

Um fuck no. If I had a son I would do anything to keep him out of jail. I don't want him to lose 5 years of his life in some pisshole no matter what he did. Why do you think people's parents go kill people who rape/kill their kids? They would do anything for them

You can escape virginity by improving your looks, but if you have no experience past certain age point as 23-24, you wont be able to get into ltr. Vicious cycle of incel life, your inexperience catches up on you

You need to know how to act in ltr

How to act on her birthdays, around her friends, how to prepare presents or book a party venue

You need to know how to kiss and fuck

You need to know how to act together with your girlfriend in social surroundings etc

Hey, I read a fantastic Scripture yesterday in 2nd Corinthians 10:5-6 “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” I never saw this truth before until yesterday, but it became clear to me. When I fail to do the right thing, I get mad at myself and I “revenge all disobedience” by making a big deal about it in my mind. I literally get mad at myself and think about it for days when I fail to obey God in some matter.

This is how you live right, that is, by subduing your mind. This is exactly what 2nd Corinthians 1:-5 teaches, that is, you bring every thought into captivity to obedience to Christ. Arrest every thought if it's a lust, hate, gossip, murmur, complaint, doubt, et cetera.

If it's hateful thought, then you arrest that thought and bind it, saying “I will not hate another human being. Life's too short to live with a burden of hatred. Christ died for my sins and forgave me. I will not hate! Lord I pray for that person, that Your will may be done in their life.”

Or if it's a lustful thought then you arrest that thought, thinking to yourself “I will not have a garbage pail for a mind. I want to please God in all my ways. The flesh is only temporary and death is coming for everybody. Beauty is only skin deep. That whore is walking death on two legs. The Lord will judge us all in eternity. She likely never had a good Christian home while growing up. She's probably not a Christian. She's not dressing that way to be mean most likely; she just wants attention. She is being selfish and doesn't love the Lord Jesus.” Today women wear their dresses up, and men their pants down. American culture is depraved.

I have no problem being friends with people whose views are different. It's would be awfully boring to hang around with people who agreed on everything.
What matters is if we can respect each others position without agreeing with it and if we can agree to disagree and drop it.

Deal breakers for me are things I view as character flaws or worse.

I found out a co-worker and friend of a friend was a child molester. I couldn't even look at him let alone talk to him. Deal breaker.
When a 'friend' asked me to look up the symptoms of mesothelioma so he knew what to say to the doctor, he was always looking for a law suit to set him up for life. Deal breaker.
People who try to get on disability

There's the kind of prejudice that makes people afraid to drive into certain neighborhoods or make eye contact with certain people. I think all of us have this kind of prejudice, and it's not necessarily mapped onto racism.

However, I'm kind of sick of racism and sexism being likened to political differences. If someone thinks an entire group of people are animals and they are bold enough to make this known to others, then they deserve to be shunned and shamed. It is perfectly fine to be intolerant of this kind of intolerance.

I'm personally struggling with this because the aforementioned friend of mine was so bold. The way she was talking, she might as well have called me an animal. Now, I'm not a perfect saint and I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I'm not obligated to forgive people just because otherwise they're decent. There are flaws and then there are defects. Everyone has the former, but not everyone has the latter.

I can be friendly with just about anyone, because I know how to be fake and phony while keeping my true feelings secret. But being friends is a different matter. The average black person spends much of their 9-5 playing the good ambassador and not going off on the ignorant racist assholes in their midst. But when they are with friends, they should be abe to relax and not worry about "playing nice" for the sake of racial harmony.

Saying "nobody's perfect" with regard to befriending racists...this sounds like something only a person with limited experience with racism and bigoty would be able say with a straight face.

Maybe it's different being white?
I have a black friend who will quite often go off on white people, how we are no good, how we are haters but hide it, how we are the devil incarnate. After a while I'll look at him and say 'uh excuse me but'. He'll give me a blank look and then he realizes I am white and says, 'well you're different, you know what I mean, it's not all white people, you're one of the okay ones'.
I'll say, 'uh huh I see'.
Then we laugh and move on to something else.
I know he doesn't really hate white people, I know he's venting, I know it's about racism and sometimes he lumps all of us white folk together even though he knows not all whites are racist.

A C-SPAN caller on Wednesday suggested that President Donald Trump’s partial government shutdown was tied to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

C-SPAN host John McArdle spoke to a New York man named Scott who called in on Washington Journal‘s line for supporters of the government shutdown.

“I don’t really have a solution,” Scott began. “But I am in support of it because I’m waiting for the second coming. We just celebrated the first coming of Jesus. But Jesus is coming back.”

“And as crazy as the government is, it’s getting us closer,” Scott added. “Now the solution to having a bill pay for the wall, Trump can do this by going after every business in America that got a tax break if they have any ties to any sister/baby companies off of them that have hired any illegal aliens in the past.”

The caller argued that Trump could “take that tax break back” and “build us a golden wall across the Mexican and Canadian border.”

“I want it shutdown because I can’t wait for when Jesus comes back and gets the righteous real people and takes them to heaven,” Scott opined. “And then we have a real big mess on this Earth.”

(throwaway05566)
We grew up in a time period filled with countless media wherein the "nerds" and unpopular kids in every piece of media were always ugly and the popular kids were always good looking. Yet the majority of people today refuse it and believe in nonsense like "personality matters more". Why?

The blackpill was literally shoved in front of every one of us since childhood through TV and movies.

So how did we end up with such a blue-pilled society? How is the view that looks are everything not universal?

(SilverGryphon)
Simple dude, they need you to keep hoping, because without hope you quickly check out and stop wasting your time, effort and money on women. Face it, men help women with the intention of getting sex and there is nothing wrong with that, that is just human nature. When they learn that the sex is not going to happen, they lose all motivation to stick around.

If all the unattractive men are told that they won't get pussy by being kind hearted they, will drop out of orbit in the millions.

All of a sudden women cannot live life on easy mode any more and their lives become much much harder as the guys who orbited them no longer help them out. This would have a dangerous effect on their mental health and the state would not be able to cope with an unprecedented level of depression.

You would get more and more guys embracing a frugal lifestyle. Hence the economy (as we currently know it) would take a huge hit as far less clothes, cars and other expensive shit is consumed. Companies like apple would be wiped off the face of the earth within weeks.

This why the view that looks are everything is not universal and why it is so vehemently attacked by others outside the manosphere and in real life. The way society is constructed, you need a large amount of laborious beta billy's to keep civilization running. Take them away and you will be facing a total collapse of the world we live in. Let that sink in for a while.

(RaphaelTisserand)

If all the unattractive men are told that they won't get pussy by being kind hearted they, will drop out of orbit in the millions.

Can we please just do this? Normies and Chads would always advise me to "stop putting pussy on a pedestal" when I was younger. Let's fucking do it. Not even rise up, just walk away.

He's raping little boys for years in the basement, and you never heard anything? Never saw anything? You make Helen Keller look like an eagle-eyed lookout.

For shame, you whining fuck. For shame.

Here's a woman who has spent how ever many years being married to an upright citizen, a man who has coached kids, probably attends church weekly and is for all intents and purposes a bloke beyond moral reproach.

Then the shit hits the fan with allegations, charges and sentences of child abuse.

If you were his wife, how would you respond? Me? I'd probably be in denial as well. To acknowledge otherwise would shatter my entire life. It would mean that *my* life had been a lie from the outset, that things I might have seen or heard along the way were not just innocent happenings, but toxic and horrid scenes. It would mean I'd have to let go of EVERYTHING I'd ever held precious. It'd mean that I was equally culpable even though I had nothing to do with the crimes.

Damn.....whatever Sandusky has done, it's just wrong to implicate his wife (and by extension, his kids) in the crimes. At the same time, it's time for her now to let him go and to get on with a life without him if she can.

I was going to relapse last night, but instead I chatted with God until I fell asleep.

I’ve never slept well. It’s just not a good time for me. I suppose it could be residual stress from being molested by my father as a kid. Always at night. Always at bedtime. Maybe my body is hanging onto those memories, and I flip into stress mode when I try to sleep (currently reading The Body Keeps the Score. Phenomenal book for those who’ve undergone severe trauma/abuse).

Last night, I climbed into bed, and just wanted to fall asleep. But I was bombarded with thoughts, fears, anxieties, and wanted a hit of dope to help me fall asleep. But I also wanted to be obedient, to “deny myself, take up my cross and follow Jesus.” I tossed and turned, and eventually just started talking with Jesus.

“Why do I feel this way?” “Why can’t I just sleep?” “Why is it so hard for me?”

We talked for some time. He asked very pointed and thought provoking questions. Each answer I had, I followed with another question.

Ultimately, He asked, “Why is it harder to choose obedience than it is to choose sin?”

I was stumped. It was a good question for sure. I mumbled, “well, I suppose because there are forces (thoughts/feelings/chemicals) that push me to sin. There’s no force that pushes me to obedience.”

He said, “What about the pain of sinning? The disappointment in yourself, the shame you feel, the groggy morning and the pain of lying to your friends and family? It’s not so much that you aren’t pushed to obedience, it simply comes after the fact, and it’s easy to ignore in the moment.”

That’s the last I remember of our conversation before I fell asleep. Fell asleep not in stress, not in anxiety, but in peaceful communion with my savior.

I’m so grateful to call Him friend, and I wanted to share my story. Hopefully one of you will have a chat with Him next time you’re feeling weak.

Mike Wazowski tried harder and wanted to become a scarer more than anyone in that film, but no matter how hard he tried he just wasn’t scary. No matter how hard he tried he couldn’t change who he was and would never be scary like Sullivan (Chad). Even the main antagonist of the biggest frat house was called Johnny “The Jaw” Worthington.

(Nejibana-)
There are some flaws in this Blackpill as Mike does get a girlfriend in Monsters Inc but would this happen in real life? Would the human equivalent of Mike Wazowski ever get a girlfriend?